Judge rules California has right to fire incompetent teachers

I am not comforted by the teachers' statement that says "the vast majority" of California teachers are competent. So how many are incompetent?

 

When a good teacher is forced out, even if that teacher pops up somewhere else, it is bad for the kids. You are also assuming that the jackass administrator who cans a good teacher will hire a competent replacement. The bad decision-maker is still there. The kids lose in that scenario.

Of course, you also don't seem to give a shit about good people being fired without good reason.

 

YF's question has been answered multiple times on this thread. He just chooses to ignore it.

One reason administrators might run off a good teacher is pressure from parents. Sometimes a good teacher is going to upset a student. That can lead to very loud complaints from mommy and daddy, who may be people with influence. Tenure protects teachers in these instances.

Thing is, the students know they can pull this crap. I've heard of kids threatening teachers with having their parents call if the teacher tries to hold them accountable for misbehavior. In some schools, the administration as the teachers' backs. Some others, not so much.

 

Journalists piss off all kinds of "people with influence" all the time.

How many of these "people with influence" are able to get the reporter fired?

Why would they have any more success getting a teacher fired? What influence, exactly, can they wield against an administrator who defends his teacher?

"If you do not fire (xxxxxxx), I'm going to ____________."

Fill in the blank.

 

I'm not saying this theoretically. I'm telling you about things that happen. It happens to teachers who have not earned tenure yet in public schools and it happens in private schools.

Why are they more successful in getting it done than those going after reporters? Good question. I'm just saying it happens and it is the primary reason tenure came about in the first place.

 

See above about risk-averse bureaucrats.

Edited to say I meant see my earlier post.

 

Adding to the teacher/journalist analogy:

If a parent whines to an elected school board member or superintendent who is elected - people who want to be re-elected - then there is a problem for the teacher.

Apply the same concept not to a politician whining about a reporter, but instead think of a major advertiser. If a major advertiser complains loudly enough about a specific reporter and threatens to withhold business, then the reporter has reason to worry about his job, doing a good job aside.

 

Total number of teachers: A
Total number of competent teachers: B
Total number of incompetent teachers: C

A-B=C. I had good teachers.

 

We know this? How do we know this? Because a judge in a relatively lower level court said so? Perhaps such a thing can be interpreted, but YF, I'm guessing if a judge declares something, you don't know it to be true.

Then comes the more sticky question in asking if reversing it suddenly grants those kids that right. Because I'm gonna go ahead and guess it'll still be denied even if they can fire old teachers for being bad or costing too much.

(To be clear, I don't particularly agree or disagree with the ruling. Seems like it'll fix some issues, create others. I'd only say this is no magic bullet and at its best moves things and infinitesimal distance closer to actually providing said right)

 

My favorite teacher from high school, who taught AP History and AP American Government for 30+ years posted on his FB page how happy he was about this and how he hopes the result would be more accountability and better teaching.

 

Been waiting for the patented "I know someone" anecdote. Good for the high school teacher whose opinion does not matter to many.

 

It should matter. He did the job for 30+ years.

But, by all means, let's continue to reward incompetence.